Possible Modern Source for the Book of Mormon

[_Bazooka]

Thanks, ControlFreak. I was contemplating writing such a reply, but answering people like Water Dog costs a considerable amount of energy, and all too often they just carry on regardless afterwards - and if they are pushed back against the wall, there is always the "Whatever you say I cannot deny my testimony" defense. But I suppose we must think of the lurkers.

You have done an excellent job in your reply. I particularly enjoyed this bit:

The Late War is not a silver bullet. The Book of Mormon has been dead for a long time. It just takes out one of the last sticks that the apologists were trying to use to prop its dead body up.

Nicely put!

Given his lack of interest in reading the threads contents I'd suggest Water Dog is here to preach and derail rather than to discuss anything.

[_Equality]

One example: that critics are claiming Joseph Smith "plagiarized" from the Late War. That particular topic was discussed at some length in this thread, with the majority of folks expressing the opinion that "plagiarism" is probably not the appropriate word to describe the Late War's influence on the Book of Mormon text.

If the attitude about this change later forgive me, but this is certainly the implication at the beginning of the thread.

You are forgiven. Yes, there were some who argued that Joseph Smith "plagiarized" from the Late War. Other "critics" (including me) argued that "plagiarism" was the wrong word, and that being more nuanced in our approach to understanding how the Late War and other works preceding the Book of Mormon might have influenced the author(s) of the Book of Mormon would be more fruitful than simply throwing out the word "plagiarism" and leaving it at that. If wading through all 62 pages of this thread is too taxing, you might use the search function to find the places in the thread where this was all discussed. I will quote for you my summary from an earlier page in this thread (note how I also took issue with those who had argued that the Late War was a "silver bullet"):

Much of the discussion on Gilbert Hunt’s The Late War over the last ten days has focused on the question of the extent to which that work may have “influenced” the Book of Mormon. Some among both faithful Mormons and critics of the LDS church have suggested that the computer analysis performed by the Johnson brothers suggests that the author of the Book of Mormon must have read the book and perhaps even consulted it as the Book of Mormon text was being produced. It is certainly possible that the Book of Mormon author had a copy of The Late War or other works in hand during the writing process, but the evidence for direct copying from the text appears weak to me. The only book for which I have seen evidence for direct copying of substantial amounts of text is the King James Version of the Bible. Even then, however, I still think it is possible that no actual text was consulted during the writing of the Book of Mormon. I think it is possible that the Book of Mormon author of the KJV passages that are found in the Book of Mormon had large portions of the Bible committed to memory. Yet I think that books such as The Late War did have an influence on the composition of the Book of Mormon.

Different Types of Influence

Direct (Conscious) Influence: For purposes of this discussion, I should explain what I mean by “influence.” I think there are two kinds of influence that one work can have on a subsequent work: direct or indirect. And within the “direct” category itself, I think there are two types: “conscious” and “unconscious.” A direct (conscious) influence is one in which a creator of a work is aware of a particular element found in an earlier work and knowingly, intentionally adopts it into a new work. Examples of direct (conscious) influence include something like Vanilla Ice adopting the bass line from “Under Pressure” into “Ice, Ice Baby,” or MC Hammer adopting the hook from “Superfreak” into “You Can’t Touch This,” or countless other cases where a musical artist “samples” directly from an earlier work and incorporates it into something new. Similar direct (conscious) influence can be seen in various forms in literature as well: fan fiction perhaps being the most obvious example.

Direct (Unconscious) Influence: A direct (unconscious) influence is one in which the creator of a work unintentionally uses something unique from a prior work without being aware of the borrowing. This is what I think Jack White was getting at in the excerpt from an interview with Rolling Stone I posted on another thread: “Q: What Paramount records or artists were important to you as a young musician, on your way to and in the White Stripes? A: I had to be careful of not being too much a collector of records. I had to keep one foot in that water, one foot out. It's dangerous for me, as a creative person, as a songwriter. When I came up, a lot of people who worked in record stores were in bands, and they couldn't seem to write a song that wasn't a reference point to something else. I tried to push myself to do something else, that was coming from inside my own brain. Of course, it will sound like something. But I didn't want to write a song like Big Bill Broonzy. I wanted to write a song that sounds like I wrote it.” I think White is describing the kind of direct but unconscious borrowing that he had to consciously struggle against. Another example from music of a direct (unconscious) borrowing might be some of the guitar riffs and lyrical phrases that Jimmy Page and Robert Plant of Led Zeppelin borrowed from old blues records. Some of those might have been conscious, but many of them were probably simply the result of having listened to so many old blues records that bits and pieces managed to creep into their own works. As Bono said (ironically quoting someone else without attribution): “every poet is a thief.”

Indirect Influence: Indirect influence is just what it sounds like: elements that are not unique to any single identifiable previous source but are representative of ideas, themes, or phrases present in the general cultural milieu and adopted by the creator of a new work. Keeping with the musical theme for examples, think of different eras of music and how easy it is to identify even songs from artists with whom you are unfamiliar as coming from a specific era. When the producers of That Thing You Do wanted to create new music for a fictional band from the early 60s British Invasion, the elements to include were obvious. When the members of the faux rock band Spinal Tap wrote songs spanning the band’s fictional 30-year history, it was funny because everyone knew the time period being represented by, say, “(Listen to the) Flower People.” The band did not have to directly lift precise lyrical phrases or sample actual chords and riffs from any specific song to create something new that was infused with elements clearly influenced by multiple earlier works.

None of what I have written so far is particularly earth-shattering. But I think that viewing influence in this way helps us put the Johnsons’ recently revealed computerized research into some perspective. I think that the new research allows us to parse out some of the influences on the Book of Mormon that we hitherto had been unable to do with as much precision. With respect to the Book of Mormon, there is no question that the KJV Bible had a direct (conscious) influence—the author must have been aware that entire chapters of the Bible were being reproduced in the text (I think this is probably an uncontroversial point, but over the years I have been sometimes surprised at some of the things people will argue about when it comes to Mormonism).

Having looked at both the Napoleon book and The Late War, I do not think either can be said to have had a direct (conscious) influence on the writing of the Book of Mormon in the way that the KJV certainly did. I think it is fair to say, however, that The Late War did have a direct (unconscious) influence on the Book of Mormon. I think it is highly likely that the author of the Book of Mormon had read The Late War and incorporated parts of it, including short phrases, a similar linguistic style, themes, and story outlines into the Book of Mormon text. As with my Led Zeppelin example, a few of these items may have been consciously done (one example from a Zeppelin song would be Plant’s famous caterwauling in “The Lemon Song” to “squeeze my lemon ‘til the juice runs down my leg” which almost certainly was a conscious borrowing from Robert Johnson (who had, himself, borrowed it from Arthur McKay)). Perhaps the “curious workmanship” or the 2000 “striplings” are the best candidates for a direct (conscious) influence. Still, on the whole, it appears to me that the great majority of the direct similarities between the two works are of the unconsciously direct variety. Statistically, it seems there are too many similar or identical phrases for the influence of The Late War to be dismissed as purely indirect. But at the same time, there seems to be too little to conclude that there was substantial conscious direct borrowing from The Late War by the author of the Book of Mormon.

As others have said in recent pages in this thread, identifying indirect influences or direct but unconscious influences is no more an indictment of Joseph Smith as a plagiarist than for Jimmy Page to admit to being influenced by Link Wray or for, I don’t know, every single person who formed a band in the 1970s and 1980s to speak of Lou Reed’s influence on their music. The apologists arguing so vociferously against the idea that there might be literary connections between The Late War and the Book of Mormon are really misunderstanding (or deliberately misstating) the argument being advanced by those who have found the evidence for some connection between the works interesting or even compelling. The argument is not, as the Jeff Lindsays of the world seem to think, that Joseph Smith (or his collaborators if he had any) had a stack of books strewn about the room where they wrote the Book of Mormon text. It is not that he (or they) leafed through these various source materials, borrowing a phrase or two from this book, a storyline from that one, some proper names slightly modified from another one over there, and so forth. No, the argument is this: the ideas, themes, and stories found in the Book of Mormon permeated the cultural milieu of the 19th-century American frontier out of which the book sprang. This is true of the historical ideas found in the book as well as the religious ones.

Some critics have pounced on this fact as evidence that Joseph Smith was a “plagiarist” or an uncreative fraud—that he never had an original thought. But I think that misses the point. In fact, I think that the Johnsons have performed an invaluable service in identifying so many printed works that provide a glimpse into the cultural world of the early republic in the American northeast. Indeed, an argument can be made (and I will even do it) that studying the list of works identified by the Johnsons actually may increase appreciation for the Book of Mormon. One example: I was reading through one of the works that the Johnsons’ algorithm identified, The Christian Experiences, Gospel Labours and Writings, of that Ancient Servant of Christ, Stephen Crisp, a 17th-century Quaker missionary, and I was struck by how similar parts of it were to Joseph Smith—History and to 2 Nephi 4 (Nephi’s Prayer or Nephi’s Lament). But in comparing the two, in both instances, the language in the Mormon writings is more elegant, compact, and impactful. Even if the ideas are similar, the expression of them in the Mormon sources is distinct and, in my opinion, more impressive, memorable, and, dare I say it, original.

The bottom line is this: there may be bits and pieces here and there in the Book of Mormon that were lifted directly from some previously published work. But the author(s?) of the Book of Mormon still did something quite remarkable in taking the flotsam and jetsam floating in the cultural sea and constructing something unique and influential in its own right. I think it is fun to look for influences both direct and indirect in the Book of Mormon. And I think that our understanding of Joseph Smith, the Book of Mormon, the early American republic, and early Mormonism and its converts all will be greatly enhanced by the work of the Johnson brothers and the work that will flow from it.

I see many potential avenues for obtaining further light and knowledge in this arena. Just a few possibilities:

• Refined computer algorithms and searches that yield additional candidates of influence on the Book of Mormon.

• Refined analytical techniques to illuminate the “multiple authors” question and questions about the order in which the Book of Mormon was composed.

• The identification of previously unknown or rarely considered possible influences on the Book of Mormon in addition to The Late War. For example, the identification of the 1822 Koran by the Johnsons is fascinating. I have never seen it discussed before. We have all been focused on TLW and the Napoleon book, but the Koran stuff is a goldmine waiting to be explored. The number of Quaker works that show up on the Johnsons’ list is also intriguing. Historians have long recognized the influence of the Campbellites on Joseph Smith and early Mormonism, and some Quaker connections have been noted previously. But could the Quaker influence have been stronger than previously understood?

The mopologists who have foolishly claimed “victory” in the 50-page debate completely miss the point. No, the Johnsons’ research does not stick a fork in Mormonism. It’s not a silver bullet against the Book of Mormon or any other exhausted metaphor. It is, instead, an exciting development in Mormon studies. The kneejerk negative response from the mopologists who have been alternatively trying to discredit the study or accept its findings while downplaying their significance reveals an unjustifiably intense insecurity about the strength of the position they advocate.

[_Equality]

Another example: you say you fail to see how the "writing style" of the Book of Mormon proves Joseph Smith a fraud. I have read this entire thread and don't remember seeing anyone make that argument.

You have me at a loss with this one. If writing style isn't the argument then what is? This sounds like an argument over semantics. Am I missing something?

Apparently, yes. The discussion has been about the implications of the information that the Johnson brothers' computer algorithm uncovered about similarities in language between the Book of Mormon and various works that preceded its publication, including most notably but not exclusively, The Late War by Gilbert Hunt. I have not seen anyone argue in this thread that "the writing style of the Book of Mormon proves Joseph Smith a fraud." There are many pieces of information that, taken together, lead the vast majority of people who consider the matter to conclude that Joseph Smith was not a "prophet, seer, and revelator" who translated ancient documents by the "gift and power of God." That does not mean that the writing style used in the Book of Mormon, alone, "proves" that Joseph Smith was a fraud. I have seen substantial variety in the opinions expressed in this thread by "critics" about the implications of the Johnsons' study for Mormon Studies. If there has been any kind of consensus, I have not really seen it, other than on the subject I previously mentioned: the impact this all has on the apologetic arguments that have been advanced from the folks at FARMS and FAIR and elsewhere that literary forms found in the Book of Mormon are evidence that Joseph Smith was divinely inspired in writing the Book of Mormon because he "couldn't possibly have known" this that or the other thing (e.g., chiasmus).

A third example: you ask about why the Late War textual comparison is just now coming to light. That's an interesting question, and one that is discussed at some length in this thread. You seem to have missed the main point that critics have made about the discovery of the Late War (and other 19th-century works written in a faux biblical style): the impact it has on arguments advanced by Mormon apologists that elements of the Book of Mormon's faux biblical style are "evidences" for an ancient provenance for the Book of Mormon and for a connection to the languages used in the Levant in 6th century B.C.E.

I'll hunt for this part of the discussion. Based on your summary though, several questions arise. One, there are a lot of linguistic styles in the Book of Mormon. The styles presented as examples of Hebraism or other ancient colloquialisms by apologists, are those the very same styles also present in these other texts? Are all of those styles in these other texts?

It appears so, yes. If not "all of those styles" at least a substantial number of them (multiple examples were given in the first 20 pages of this thread).

To answer one of your questions: I would expect that a fictional work being peddled as a book of scripture akin to the Bible, written by a 24-year-old living on the American frontier in the early 19th century, would appear in a style exactly like or very similar to what the we see in the first edition of the Book of Mormon. That expectation is only heightened by the revelations that the Johnson brothers brought to light regarding the Late War and other works they discovered through the use of their computer algorithm. That other works written in the faux biblical style were available to Joseph Smith makes that aspect of the Book of Mormon's literary style common. It is no longer one of the book's unique characteristics. It is Mormon apologists, who have cited the literary style of the Book of Mormon as one of it unique characteristics supposedly evidencing the book's supernatural origins, who are forced by the Johnson brothers' work to adjust their thinking.

That isn't the question I asked.

Well, Mormon church leaders have told me that I should answer the question that should have been asked instead of the one actually asked, so I was just following the marching orders from the Brethren here.

You're trying to take the easy way out. You can't demonstrate that the Book of Mormon appears in a style you would expect from a fraud without first defining what the genuine article would look like. You need a reference point by which to compare.

Why? If someone comes forward and says they have translated a book that was the record of an ancient alien civilization from the planet Gronk in star cluster M-9857473, do I need to know what a genuine Gronkian record would look like? Or could I examine the work produced? If upon examining the record produced it looks like something that a 21st-century American UFOlogist might produce, would it not be reasonable for me to conclude that the work produced was not, in fact, a genuine record of an ancient alien civilization?

And also, your description isn't an honest consideration of the known history.

Why accuse me of dishonesty? I thought we were having a civil discussion here.

Could a 24-year-old in that time period write a work of fiction that appears like this, given the proper amount of time, resources, education, etc.? Sure, I can buy that.

We agree.

Could Joseph Smith have though with his environment and background? Really hard sale.

It seems he did. This is the classic mopologetic line. "Joseph couldn't have done it." But he did. And while what he did was remarkable, there is no evidence that would compel the conclusion that the Book of Mormon could not have been produced by natural, rather than supernatural, means.

If Joseph Smith did it alone, he was a genius, and a particular one at that.

Perhaps he was a genius. I have no problem putting that label on him.

And this doesn't fit with any of the other history about him.

I disagree. And I think there are many faithful Mormons, including faithful Mormon historians who would disagree with you.

I find it laughable to think Joseph Smith could have done this alone.

OK. I do not find it laughable (I hope you don't think that my disagreeing with you on this makes me dishonest). Intelligent, educated people with deep knowledge of Mormon history debate whether Smith acted alone or in concert with others. For me, the jury is still out on that question. I tend to be in the "Joseph acted alone, or at least mostly alone" camp but I am willing to consider additional evidence as it comes to light. Are you?

If it's a fraud, it had to involve a large number of people

I disagree with the premise. It could have been a conspiracy of a small number of people (not saying it was, just that it could have been).

which then raises other questions. Does the fiction hypothesis fit with the historical narrative and the behavior patterns of all the actors involved? No. Not by a long shot.

Yes. By a long shot. (What can be asserted without support can be rejected without support).

The pool of people to study and the amount of historical evidence expands, and none of those events are cohesive with the Book of Mormon being an intentional deception.

I don't know what this means.

None of the people who would have been in a position to know whether it was a fraud or not ever accused or admitted anything of the sort later in life.

I don't think that is accurate, but assuming, arguendo, that it is: are you saying that a conspiracy is only a conspiracy if members of the conspiracy admit to it later in life? Really? That does not make sense to me.

This leads us to believe that if it was a fraud, Joseph Smith had to be acting alone... and how is that possible?

Circular reasoning based on false premises, unsupported assertions, and questionable leaps of logic. How was it possible? Great topic for discussion. That the answer may be elusive does not mean we should jump to "an extraterrestrial resurrected primate deity sent an ancient American Indian with plates of gold to an 18-year-old treasure seeker to translate a record written in a never-before-or-since-heard-of language using a hat-buried peepstone found in a local well" as the most compelling explanation for how the book came to exist.

[_Tobin]

You're trying to take the easy way out. You can't demonstrate that the Book of Mormon appears in a style you would expect from a fraud without first defining what the genuine article would look like. You need a reference point by which to compare.

Why? If someone comes forward and says they have translated a book that was the record of an ancient alien civilization from the planet Gronk in star cluster M-9857473, do I need to know what a genuine Gronkian record would look like? Or could I examine the work produced? If upon examining the record produced it looks like something that a 21st-century American UFOlogist might produce, would it not be reasonable for me to conclude that the work produced was not, in fact, a genuine record of an ancient alien civilization?

That is a mystifying answer. Let's consider your example. What do you propose the form of a Gronkian record must exactly take to be credible when it is translated by a 21st century person into English? I would expect that it would be in the form of 21st century English. But please elaborate why it would be anything other than that. Simply asserting it must be something else for no apparent or fathomable reason seems rather absurd.

[_Everybody Wang Chung]

For me, the smoking gun would have to be the freemen or the stripling warriors. As far as I know, you're not going to find those anywhere else but in the Book of Mormon and The Late War.

"Curious workmanship" is interesting, but taken together with everything else in The Late War, I think it's pretty compelling.

How so? I'm sorry. I truly don't mean to be rude, but I find your argument to be very poorly thought out. A linguistic phrase (or word) appears in two writings. Therefore the second author clearly must have copied from the first. Even if the word "stripling" has only ever been used twice in the history of the English language, it is pure conjecture to state Joseph Smith's use of the word constitutes the Book of Mormon being a plagiarization from this other text.

Waterdog,

No worries. You're not being rude at all.

What I was trying to say was I think one would be hard pressed to find another single book with as much similarities in theme, language and specifics. For example, here are just a few similarities:

-numerous Hebraisms (adverbials, compound prepositions, etc.),

-similar writing style,

-high probability that Joseph Smith and/or his associates either owned, or had read The Late War,

-2000 warriors/stripling warrior,

-curious workmanship,

-freemen/kingman, and

-descriptions of the new world/elephants,


Regardless, it's an interesting read and can help us appreciate and understand the Book of Mormon.

[Guest]

[

Could Joseph Smith have though with his environment and background? Really hard sale.

It seems he did. This is the classic mopologetic line. "Joseph couldn't have done it." But he did. And while what he did was remarkable, there is no evidence that would compel the conclusion that the Book of Mormon could not have been produced by natural, rather than supernatural, means.

If Joseph Smith did it alone, he was a genius, and a particular one at that.

Perhaps he was a genius. I have no problem putting that label on him.

And, no matter how much Mopologists try to divide and conquer, those who believe he did it alone and those who believe he had substantial help still agree that the book was written by human means.

Everybody Wang Chung, your post is a good summary of the conclusions, once the dust settled.

[_Always Changing]

Argh. I posted a lengthy response and I'm not sure where it went. I wonder if comments are going through an approval process?

There is a limit on post length. That way, wordy posters, no matter what their beliefs, are encouraged to trim it down.

[_Chap]

...

<Various arguments tending towards the Book of Mormon being an authentic ancient text>

Which is a more difficult problem? Explaining all this, or considering that maybe the Book of Mormon is still authentic despite the influence of these other contemporaries on his vocabulary?

The idea that the Book of Mormon is an authentic ancient text, and:

1. It was delivered by miraculous means to Joseph Smith by an agent of the Abrahamic deity (who must therefore be presumed to exist despite all evidence to the contrary);

2. It was translated by him into strangely inaccurate KJV-like prose from an as yet unattested language that he did not know;

3. It is historically accurate in describing a group of Jews inhabiting ancient America and practicing what is to all appearances a religion familiar to early 19th C. American Protestants;

4. This group of Jews has left no recognizable archeological trace (let alone genetic), but were there none the less;

All that and more - is infinitely less plausible than the idea that at the core of the early Mormon church was at least one charismatic liar, with the assistance of a group of helpers who were at the very least willing to be deceived.

Phenomena such as the Book of Mormon are not common in human history. But there is no reason not to think that they do happen from time to time, and plenty of instances of human credulity and self-deception to serve as supporting evidence. Believing in miracles will never be the more plausible choice.

[_Uncle Ed]

@Water Dog:

For the logical mind the LDS gospel is the only form of Christianity that makes any sense, and it is very different from any other sect. Scholars, including non-LDS, have written PhD dissertations entirely based on new concepts introduced by the Book of Mormon and how they have impacted the Christian world and the pool of philosophical thought.

I have a logical mind, and Christianity never made logical sense to me, not even the Mormon variety. The entire paradigm assumes a limited god, or a game-playing one who insists that we all do it his way or the highway.

Interesting, these "new concepts introduced by the Book of Mormon". I don't see anything new in the Book of Mormon. It's theology is Trinitarian, with ONE God taking multiple roles, even manifestations, and therefore becoming the "Father and the Son" and the "Spirit of the Lord". It's final state of the wicked at death totally fails to prepare the reader for later Mormon salvation for the dead. There is nothing but condemnation for later polygamy as well. What is there in the Book of Mormon that is actually NEW, as compared to rare or unorthodox or even heretical?...

[Guest]

Uncle Ed's post called my attention to this interesting passage:

... the Book of Mormon introduced a lot of philosophical and religious concepts into the Christian world which were revolutionary, even still today. Wildly unique. For the logical mind the LDS gospel is the only form of Christianity that makes any sense, and it is very different from any other sect. Scholars, including non-LDS, have written PhD dissertations entirely based on new concepts introduced by the Book of Mormon and how they have impacted the Christian world and the pool of philosophical thought.

OK, then:

1. Please give me an example of a revolutionary religious or philosophical concept unique to the Book of Mormon, with reference to the chapter and verse in which it is introduced.

2. Please show me how the said concept was 'introduced into the Christian world', in the sense of becoming familiar to significant numbers of non-LDS Christians.

3. Please show how (say) John Polkinghorne, a former Professor of Mathematical Physics in the University of Cambridge who is an Anglican priest rather than a Mormon, does not have a logical mind. (By the way - I believe Polkinghorne is wrong; but that is not the same as saying that he is illogical in his mental processes.)

4. Please give me an example of one of the new concepts introduced by the Book of Mormon which have had PhD theses written on them by non-Mormons and have "impacted the Christian world and the pool of philosophical thought" in any noticeable sense.